Re: Help design the ideal Presidential candidate

On May 14, 3:33 pm, archm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Nate Edel) wrote:
> AlfredMontestruc<montest...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On May 13, 12:52 am, Aaron Denney <wno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On 2008-05-12, Nate Edel <archm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >> You are missing a huge part of the argument.  Namely that states
and
> > > >> their people voted to enter the union by state elections and
state
> > > >> legal processes, and they had just as much right to vote their
way
> > > >> right back out again without the federal government getting to
say boo
> > > >> about it.
>
> > > > That doesn't fly; if you want to look at it purely from the
states'
> > > > perspective, the Constitution is a contract between the states.
Like any
> > > > contract, it need not be perpetual, but an individual state does
not
> > > > necessarily have the right to unilaterally decide the terms under
which the
> > > > contract is terminated.
>
> > Oh contrary!
>
> > It was an open ended association contract, neither specified as
> > perpetual nor finite duration, that makes it terminable by any party
> > to it as far as that party is concerned.  See employment contracts
> > that do not have specific duration, fire or quit at will.  See club
> > member****p contracts without specific duration.
>
> No, that's incorrect.  Employment contracts have a clear relation****p
> between employer and employee, and don't have comingling of funds or
> property; a much closer model is a business partner****p. It is
voluntary,
> and can be exited by any partner, but unless the terms of that exit are
> specified in advance, you can't simply grab an equal share of the money
in
> the bank plus your company-owned car and assume that it's going to be
either
> legally or morally acceptable.

Any of the partners can get out of the business at will and get a
reasonable share of the property.

You seem to be under the impression that the south was unwilling to
have proper division of property, that is about as far from the truth
as it can get. They already know that a large fraction of the
Republicans intended to forcibly resist secession,.  Yes armories and
suchlike were sized, but would have been part of a property
distribution. Several delegations were sent to Wa****ngton to attempt
such a negotiated settlement of property and other concerns like use
of the Mississippi River, to no avail, Lincoln would not meet them,
nor would he allow anyone else to meet with them and negotiate on
behalf of the federal government as he was not willing to concede even
the possibility of the legality of secession.  Regardless of how much
it cost the American people.





>
> The same is true for a club member****p, in many ways: if you have club
> property at home - even if you paid for an equal share of it originally
- and
> just stop showing up to meetings, don't be surprised if someone shows up
at
> your door asking for it back, and if rebuffed, ends up calling the
police.

As the club member might well call the cops for the club holding him
and his share of the club property against his will claiming he cannot
leave the club.